EU Targets Big Tech With 'Hit List' Facing Tougher Rules (ft.com) 33
EU regulators are drawing up a "hit list" of up to 20 large internet companies, likely to include Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Apple, that will be subject to new and far more stringent rules aimed at curbing their market power. From a report: Under the plans, large platforms that find themselves on the list will have to comply with tougher regulation than smaller competitors, according to people familiar with the discussions, including new rules that will force them to share data with rivals and an obligation to be more transparent on how they gather information. The list will be compiled based on a number of criteria, including market share of revenues and number of users, meaning the likes of Facebook and Google are likely to be included. Those deemed to be so powerful that rivals cannot trade without using their platforms could also be added.
The move to gain new powers is part of a growing effort in Brussels to force big technology companies to change their business practices without a full investigation or any finding that they have broken existing laws. It follows complaints that the current regulatory regime has resulted in weak and belated action, which has done little to foster competition. The number of companies and the precise criteria for the list is still being discussed, but it is the latest indication of how serious the EU is about coming up with powers to limit the power of platforms seen as "too big to care."
The move to gain new powers is part of a growing effort in Brussels to force big technology companies to change their business practices without a full investigation or any finding that they have broken existing laws. It follows complaints that the current regulatory regime has resulted in weak and belated action, which has done little to foster competition. The number of companies and the precise criteria for the list is still being discussed, but it is the latest indication of how serious the EU is about coming up with powers to limit the power of platforms seen as "too big to care."
Re: (Score:2)
Man, if they didn't have big American companies to hit up for cash, where would EU even get their money?
Sure because American mega corporations, unlike the mega corporations of other nations, are such a bunch of pitiable persecuted victims and the free market thrives the most when there is a big fat brutal monopoly in every industry that steps on any innovative upcoming competitors and grinds them into the dirt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Holy shit!!!
Does Slashdot FINALLY support UTF-8?!?!
“©”
When the hell did this happen?!
Paywall (Score:2)
TFA seems to be paywalled.... anybody care to post the text?
Text of the paywalled article (Score:5, Informative)
EU targets Big Tech with ‘hit list’ facing tougher rules
Brussels broadens search for extra powers to curb power of digital platforms
-- Javier Espinoza in Brussels October 11, 2020
EU regulators are drawing up a “hit list” of up to 20 large internet companies, likely to include Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Apple, that will be subject to new and far more stringent rules aimed at curbing their market power.
Under the plans, large platforms that find themselves on the list will have to comply with tougher regulation than smaller competitors, according to people familiar with the discussions, including new rules that will force them to share data with rivals and an obligation to be more transparent on how they gather information.
The list will be compiled based on a number of criteria, including market share of revenues and number of users, meaning the likes of Facebook and Google are likely to be included. Those deemed to be so powerful that rivals cannot trade without using their platforms could also be added.
The move to gain new powers is part of a growing effort in Brussels to force big technology companies to change their business practices without a full investigation or any finding that they have broken existing laws.
It follows complaints that the current regulatory regime has resulted in weak and belated action, which has done little to foster competition.
The number of companies and the precise criteria for the list is still being discussed, but it is the latest indication of how serious the EU is about coming up with powers to limit the power of platforms seen as “too big to care”.
“The immense market power of these platforms is not good for competition,” said a person with intimate knowledge of the discussions.
The proposals, which are still being discussed among senior EU officials, could end up being part of new regulation aimed at diminishing the power of platforms that are perceived to be acting as gatekeepers.
As part of the powers, the EU is seeking to go beyond just fines, which often are seen as just the cost of doing business. Instead, Brussels wants to be able to move quickly to force the likes of Amazon and Apple to ensure they give access to competitors and that they share data with rivals.
In extreme circumstances, the EU will seek to address structural problems, by breaking up Big Tech, or by forcing companies to sell units if they are found to be behaving to the detriment of rivals.
The list will be heavily skewed towards Big Tech in the US, a move that will be seen as controversial and risks adding to friction between Washington and Brussels, according to people familiar with the discussions.
In a further sign of simmering trade tensions, Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s new trade chief, has told the US to prepare for additional levies on exports to Europe unless it withdraws punitive tariffs on more than $7bn of EU products.
A push for new rules and new powers in Brussels is set to face fierce opposition from the large dominant platforms, but political momentum is growing for the EU to regulate Big Tech.
The EU is also preparing draft proposals for an overhaul of the internet rules of the bloc, the first time such an exercise has been carried out in two decades. Proposals for the new Digital Services Act are expected in early December and they will seek to increase the responsibility of platforms when it comes to policing illegal content or products being sold online.
“The internet as we know it is being destroyed,” said another person with direct knowledge of Brussels plans. “Big platforms are invasive, they pay little tax and they destroy competition. This is not the internet we wanted.”
The push to curb Big Tech’s power goes beyond Brussels.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority wants to have powers to scrutinise digital mergers that would often fall below the required thresholds for scrutiny.
A congressional report in the US said Big Tech has abused its market power, suggesting large platforms should restructure their businesses entirely.
Are they trying to compensate for the GDPR weight? (Score:4, Interesting)
GDPR means start-ups can't change their business models quickly, as they have to go through a thorough and expensive legal review every time they do that. It pretty much kills innovation in Europe. You'd have to test business models out somewhere else, then, once well tested and established, you'd bring it back, which is something that is much easier to do for non-European companies.
I believe they are trying to compensate for that, that they will fail, and still not admit they do not understand any of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GDPR (Score:4, Informative)
How onerous it is depends on who you talk to; the people pushing you to comply ("it's simple!") or the people who make a living helping you to comply ("you can't do it without our help!").
I'm involved with a company that helps with small package shipping. Much of the information we need to create labels that comply with shipping regulations falls under GDPR restrictions (primarily address and telephone information), which we should dispose of.
Except OTHER regulations require that we retain that same information, in case the governments involved think there are tax or legal issues.
The same year we got our first GDPR compliance checklist, we were asked to generate proof of sale reports that detailed where every shipment went and whether or not it was delivered.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond a picture of the package sitting on the front porch, how would you prove this? They can't seriously expect a picture of every box left on every porch as evidence, can they?
If so. Have fun with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Amazon regularly drops my package off at my neighbors house and then takes a picture of them delivery to the wrong place. This happens often. Luckily I have a cool neighbor.
It also proves nothing because it wasn't the right fucking address, but I don't expect a minimum wager to give two shits if they got it to the right door. Close enough!!
Re: (Score:2)
This is now the norm for deliveries in California, and I assume it's happening elsewhere. There's been a steady rise in stolen packages, and that was probably making it hard to insure and/or eat the losses. In bulk, you are right it's unwieldy, but it's super-useful in the small fraction of contested deliveries.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who wants the proof of delivery.
US FDA accepts a consignee signature as indication of delivery. Most carriers (UPS, Fedex, DHL, USPS) offer that as a delivery option.
They're currently accepting driver-entered "COVID19" as a signature,
In the case of the EU shipments, a driver release of the package as delivered was all they needed to show that a package was delivered, and that the shipper was no longer responsible for the taxes due on the contents. That was what the report was to be for.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Handling any kind of private data is already highly sensitive and there are criminal penalties (i.e. personal ones) if you willfully misuse it. Hence all start-ups already need to deal with this. But seriously, the restrictions are not that bad, you just need to remember that personal date belongs to the people it refers to, not to the one that has the data.
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR means start-ups can't change their business models quickly, as they have to go through a thorough and expensive legal review every time they do that.
GDPR means absolutely nothing of the sort. Unless your idea of "startup" is business that survives entirely on hoovering up data and invading privacy of others. How will the world possibly work if companies can't do that I wonder.
I don't use this accusation a lot, but your post is too dumb not to be outright shilling against GDPR. It takes a lot of effort to write about a topic you clearly know nothing about with such conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything ad-supported will have significant GDPR implications, unless they are untracked completely-untargeted display ads, which can only support the lowest-tiers of cheap content. And yes even newspapers have to do some tracking on their ads to limit fraud (widespread fraud results in rate collapse, and thus revenue collapse). Subscription models greatly advantage existing large players and make it hard for any startup to break into a market.
In your perfect future where everything is a $10+/month subscr
Re: (Score:2)
Anything ad-supported will have significant GDPR implications
You would think that if and only if you haven't read the GDPR. Seriously, go have a read. It's not some hyper complex tax law. Compliance with the GDPR isn't hard, doesn't preclude you from making money from ads, and quite critically you don't need some onerous investigation if your change in business practice suddenly makes you no compliant. The law is incredibly general and conceptual. If you're concerned that your "quick change in business model" is hampered by this, then fucking good, because you're no
Will just further cement their positions (Score:5, Insightful)
Imposing additional rules for "Big Tech" would just make it harder for smaller companies to become "Big Tech", thus cementing their positions and limiting potential compeition.
By the time a small company might find success and become big, they will suddenly have to figure out how to comply with the big tech rules, and Big Tech will have an incentive to make compliance as complicated as possible for the little guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
would just make it harder for smaller companies to become "Big Tech",
This is by design. The goal is not to have more big tech, it's to break up existing big tech. People often wonder why Europe doesn't have any monopolistic monsters but miss the obvious question: Why the hell would we want them? We don't want the exiting American ones either and the world would be better off if bit tech stopped buying every small company the world over.
Re: (Score:2)
People often wonder why Europe doesn't have any monopolistic monsters but miss the obvious question: Why the hell would we want them?
Because of the saying "If you aren't at the table, you are on the menu". Europeans have been resting on the laurels they reaped from colonial days that they have forgotten what happens to weak countries.
The next (or ongoing) industrial revolution is in big data and AI. If Europe doesn't have any big players in that area, then they will be subject to the whims of the big players from elsewhere under the watchful eye of their respective governments.
The question is, do Europeans want their future to be like
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans have been resting on the laurels they reaped from colonial days that they have forgotten what happens to weak countries.
LOL, not really. The big problem is that much of the innovation you hold so dear actually comes out of Europe. The problem is that USA based monoliths come in and just buy up the result. You're right the very next revolution is in big data / AI, but I for one am glad to live in a country where that revolution is regulated and not built on the backs of the oppressed.
So I ask you again: Why would we want it? What good has come of having gigantic megacorps on your side of the fence? You have Amazon, we have 1
Target will be American and Chinese (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then China will wangle preferential treatment in grounds of being a Vital Trading Partner.
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw in the plan to break up big tech (Score:2)
This is the PRIMARY value of these internet tools.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it in a nutshell. If you force open the platform and make them give all the data away, I'm not sure how they are to actually stay in business. You have all these costs but the very thing you would use to make money is now available to all. Maybe the platform can charge a handling fee since they won't be able to compete on scarcity.
Mostly I laugh about it but the end result may very well be little to no user generated content except on "The Platform" which will be so locked down for PC crimes that you
People should pay for the services and expect priv (Score:2)
People get free access to the platform by paying for it with their data and patterns. The big tech companies should offer an option where people pay for the service with money instead of paying with their data.
It seems like a lot of people arenâ(TM)t bothered by the trade off given how many users they have.
Interesting idea (Score:2)
I don't think this is what the article is suggesting, but it prompted this idea: What if we had some set of additional oversight/regulation for the largest X companies? Come up with some criteria - total revenue, profit, etc. - and whatever are the top say 20 get the additional requirements.
What new regulations? Maybe shift some of the burden of proof of anti-competitive behavior. Make them demonstrate annually how they are able to reach the size they are without forcing out competitors.
Over time I expect y